Woods' lawyers argue about race in one of his first-degree murder cases

Monday

Sep 9, 2013 at 6:14 PM

Attorneys defending Michael Woods in one of his first-degree murder cases challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty on Monday, arguing that Florida - and specifically the 5th Judicial Circuit, which includes Marion County - seek capital punishment in a racially discriminatory way.

By April WarrenStaff writer

Attorneys defending Michael Woods in one of his first-degree murder cases challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty on Monday, arguing that Florida — and specifically the 5th Judicial Circuit, which includes Marion County — seeks capital punishment in a racially discriminatory way.The defense said the State Attorney's Office in this circuit is more than four times more likely to seek a death sentence against a non-white defendant accused of killing a single white female than other combinations of accused-victim.The prosecution argued the data was incomplete and failed to account for the unique facts of each crime, including heinousness."My job is to save my client's life," defense attorney Terence Lenamon said during the four-hour hearing, during which he argued a slew of pre-trial motions. The defense has filed a plethora of motions throughout the case, ranging from limiting victim impact evidence to recording jury venire.Jury selection in the murder trial is set to begin Oct. 14. Prosecutors believe Woods, a 30-year-old African-American man, shot and killed a white woman, Toni Centracco, 20, outside a Northeast Ocala home in 2007 while committing a burglary.Woods is also accused of murdering two other people: Marshall Pardee and Chyvana Hampton. Those cases remain pending and are set for trial in 2014.On Monday Circuit Judge Brian Lambert engaged attorneys on both sides, as well as experts who took the witness stand, asking questions about their arguments. Lambert is expected to give his decision on the constitutionality motion in writing within a few days, according to defense attorney James Reich.Reich will handle the guilt phase of the trial while Lenamon prepares for a possible penalty phase if the trial progresses that to that point."Racism in Marion County is a cogent factor that is relevant in this case," said Marvin Dunn, author of several books on race including his most recent, "The Beast in Florida: A History of Anti-Black Violence."Dunn, a Miami resident, spoke with two ministers in Marion County regarding their concerns with race in the area. "They were both very critical of the issue of justice of blacks in Marion County," he said.The clergy members said black defendants were more likely to be sentenced to harsher punishments than a white defendant for the same crime, referenced a disproportionate number of blacks in jail, and said black business development in the area is "a joke."Dunn also asked the court to consider how many businesses on the downtown square are run by minorities.Dunn put his testimony in context, citing several murder cases in the region where blacks were believed to be discriminated against, including the 1949 "Groveland Four" case and the 1920s Rosewood massacre, which was the basis of a 1997 movie.Dunn, a 73-year-old African-American born in Volusia County, still remembers drinking from "colored" water fountains, segregated schools, and watching police brutalize a young black man. He said there has been progress over time, but residual attitudes are still lingering."The impact of race can be seen in both schools and court," he said, explaining there should be more minorities who serve on the bench."Education is the best cure for inequality and treatment," Dunn said. When questioned by Lambert, Dunn said he believes every county in Florida is to some degree racist, and pointed to Broward County as being the least, due to an active Democratic Party that facilitates blacks to address more of their agenda.Before wrapping up his testimony, Dunn touched on jury selection. The defense has asked the judge to limit dismissing potential jurors and to record the race of those dismissed.The goal is to maintain a jury pool that is at least close to being representative of the minorities who live in Marion County."People tend to identify with people who are similar to themselves," Dunn said. "And in a court where someone's freedom is at stake, that can be a very dangerous thing."On cross-examination, Assistant State Attorney Robin Arnold pointed out the population of Florida has changed in recent decades, with an influx of new residents from the Midwest and Northeast. She also asked if Dunn had spoken to anyone other than the two clergy members, referencing retired Ocala police Chief Sam Williams as a possible community source.Dunn did not reach out to Williams. He did try City Council President Mary Sue Rich, but they never connected. Both Williams and Rich are black.After Dunn, the defense called criminologist and statistician James Alan Fox, who had prepared statistical analysis used in a State of the Union address by Bill Clinton and other research for Congress and former Attorney General Janet Reno."Of the 300 plus homicides in the 5th Judicial Circuit when a non-white defendant killed a white defendant, the death penalty was sought 40 percent of the time," wrote Lenamon in his motion, which cited the report."The percentage was nearly sliced in half when there was a non-white victim."The prosecutor's office chose to seek the death penalty in more than 70 percent of homicide cases where a non-white person was accused of murdering a single white female, according to Fox's findings.In the 5th Judicial Circuit, which includes Marion, Citrus, Lake, Hernando and Sumter counties, State Attorney Brad King ultimately decides whether to seek the death penalty in a particular case."There is no evidence to suggest that Brad King has done anything racially wrong," said Lenamon in his closing argument. On cross-examination, Assistant State Attorney Janine Nixon pointed out "non-white" could also mean Hispanic. She also argued the list of death penalty cases Fox was given as a basis for his work was incomplete and cited potential errors in gathering the raw data.While this testimony played heavily during Monday's hearing, both Reich and Lenamon agree it should not come up again in either the guilt or penalty phase of the trial.